- (1.) HEARD finally with the consent of counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
(2.) WRIT petition was filed by the appellant-petitioner praying for the relief to grant pay for the period from 05.12.1990 to 04.08.1991, the action of the respondents in not promoting the petitioner to the higher scale was questioned including of not making payment of incentive of 5% of the amount charged from the consumers as penalty under the scheme published in the year 1990 be declared illegal and arbitrary. The facts were disputed by the respondents by filing reply. Entitlement of the petitioner for 5% of the amount charged from the consumers as penalty was also seriously disputed by the respondents. It was further contended that the petitioner was not responsible for recovery of the penalty. It was further submitted in the return that the petitioner was in habit of lodging false complaints just to harass his superiors, so that he can manage the working of the office as per his own wishes. It was also submitted that no electricity theft or any irregularity, as mentioned by the petitioner in para 5 of writ application, was found and no penalty on the basis of the complaint of the petitioner was charged. It was further submitted that the petitioner remained absent from 05.12.1990 to 04.08.1991 from his duty at Thanagazi, where he was transferred. He was not on the roll of the Assistant Engineer(O&M), R.S.E.B., Dholpur, therefore, he was not entitled for the salary of that period on the basis of principle of 'No Work No Pay'. The petitioner was also not fulfilling the criteria of the award. As per the award, selection grade was to be allowed on 20% sanctioned posts in respect of those employees, who have completed 11 years of service subject to their suitability for the selection grade. The reliefs claimed by the petitioner were denied by the respondents. The Single Bench dismissed writ petition and declined to grant relief with respect to the salary for the aforesaid period and 5% incentive claimed by the petitioner on account of penalty recovered from the consumers and with respect to third relief for grant of selection grade, it was observed that the same was granted on 18.02.1997 and the said fact was not disputed by the petitioner, as noted by the Single Bench. The Single Bench vide order dated 09.11.2005 dismissed the writ application. Hence, intra Court appeal has been preferred by the petitioner-appellant. Mr. A.K. Bhargava, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that it was a case where 5% incentive ought to have been granted to the appellant. He has further submitted that if the salary for the period from 05.12.1990 to 04.08.1991 was not to be granted to the appellant, in that case, since the appellant has retired from service during pendency of the writ application, the aforesaid period may be ordered to be regularised by sanctioning any kind of leave available to the appellant. After hearing counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, we are of the opinion that for the period from 05.12.1990 to 04.08.1991, the appellant cannot be said to be entitled for the salary, as he did not join his duty at Dholpur, where he was transferred. Thus, on the basis of principle of 'No Work No Pay', the appellant cannot be granted salary for the aforesaid period. However, he can apply for sanction of any kind of leave available to him. In case, any such application is filed by the appellant, the same has to be considered and decided by the respondents in objective manner. Coming to the question of grant of 5% incentive on account of penalty recovered from the consumers, the said fact was seriously disputed by the respondents. It has been submitted that the appellant was not responsible for recovery of any of the penalty. Thus, there was no question of making payment of 5% incentive to him out of the penalty amount recovered from the consumers. The appellant has not been able to place any document on record indicating that penalty has been recovered at his instance. Considering the disputed facts involved in the matter, the Single Bench has rightly declined to go into the aforesaid aspect. Even otherwise, the claim could not be substantiated by the appellant. Coming to the question of grant of selection scale with effect from 18.02.1997, Mr. A.K. Bhargava counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has prayed that in case leave of the appellant for the period from 05.12.1990 to 04.08.1991 is sanctioned, then the said period may be ordered to be counted as service rendered by him and date of grant of selection scale may also be revised accordingly. Let the respondents consider the aforesaid aspect of revision of date of grant of selection scale granted to the appellant with effect from 18.02.1997, depending upon the decision with respect to sanction of leave of the appellant. Let the appellant file appropriate application before the respondents within a period of one month from today for sanction of leave, in case the said period has not been regularised so far. On filing such application, let it be considered and decided by the respondents by passing reasoned order within a period of two months thereafter and question of revision of date of grant of selection scale be also examined and decided by the respondents within the same period. Accordingly, appeal stands disposed of. ;